CONGRESS AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974 U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Lee Metcalf, chairman, presiding. Present: Senator Metcalf, and Representatives Brooks, Giaimo, Cleveland, and Dellenback. Chairman METCALF. The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations will be in order. Today we have a heavy agenda for this hearing on Congress and Mass Communications. I hope that we can move along this morning and this afternoon with dispatch. We will hear testimony today from 10 Members of the House and Senate, a full schedule. We will have to continue this hearing this afternoon to accommodate all of the witnesses. I have an opening statement which has been circulated to the witnesses, released to the press, and which sets forth the objectives of the hearing, and sets forth some of the things which we hope to achieve. Following today's testimony from Members of the House and Senate who have long been interested in communication problems, we will seek answers to questions from witnesses experienced in corporate media management, from journalists, from public opinion analysts, from media critics, from those who have experience in broadcast coverage of State legislatures and we will hear from witnesses who have organized broadcast coverage of the United Nations and from academic experts in the field of congressional operations and constitutional law. The vice chairman, Congressman Brooks, is here with us, and he has a very important meeting of the Judiciary Committee. He has an opening statement, and after his opening statement, we will excuse him, and call the other witnesses. First, I will make my opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA A Congress which talks only to itself cannot hope to discharge its constitutional responsibilities to the American people. Our committee hearings, our House and Senate debates, the statements of our leaders on both sides of the aisle-all would be an empty exercise if their substance were to echo only in the hallways of the Capitol. Yet there are signs that we are uncomfortably near this level of inaudibility right now. All the evidence from recent surveys indicates that most Americans know little about what Congress is supposed to do under our Constitution, or how Congress actually decides public policy questions. Nevertheless, the polls also suggest that Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with congressional performance. Congress obviously is not coming through loud and clear. Surely, with faith in congressional effectiveness at a new low, it is time for us to do everything possible to let the people know what Congress is doing and why it acts as it does in their behalf. Whether Congress can be heard and understood clearly becomes even more critical in light of the extensive and highly sophisticated use of media techniques by the executive branch. Presidential requests for prime network television time are routine-and routinely granted. The capability of executive agencies to project their views is staggering and their capability almost certainly will continue to grow with each new administration and with each new advance in communications technology. In part, of course, the blame for the existing imbalance in communication capabilities lies in Congress itself. Congress has appropriated the money over the years to expand executive public information programs. But aside from the activities of individual Members of Congress, congressional initiatives toward communication with the public have been few and far between. Only rarely have congressional spokesmen sought and gained access to the broadcast media to respond to Presidential proposals or to alert the public to Presidential attempts to strengthen the Oval Office at the expense of the People's Branch. Whoever or whatever is to blame, the significant fact is that the gap between the communications capability of the two branches is far too wide, if we are to maintain the balance of powers that is so close to the heart of our democratic system. A Congress unable to project its voice much beyond the banks of the Potomac to be heard and understood only dimly outside Washington, D.C.-can be neither representative nor responsive. A Congress able only to whisper, no matter how intelligently, cannot check and balance the power of the Executive or safeguard the liberty of the individual citizen. Let me emphasize this point: I am not advocating any kind of slick public relations program for Congress, and I am certain that all members of the Joint Committee would join me in rejecting any such notion. We are aware that Congress has its shortcomings. We are not interested in managing the news, Madison Avenue imagemaking, or in packaging the Congress for a hard-sell campaign through the media. But I am convinced that we must now consider methods, consistent with this institution's lawmaking function, which could permit Congress to bring more meaningful information more directly to more of our citizens. Certainly, we must at this time carefully examine any customs or other aspects of our operation that might discourage the news media or the public generally from seeing and understanding the activities and role of the National Legislature. Our background study for these hearings has identified a number of possibilities, such as opening House and Senate floor debate to broad cast coverage, providing an information service making it easier for journalists to keep track of what is taking place in Congress, and encouraging congressional committees to hold more hearings outside of the Capitol. Other possibilities undoubtedly will be identified in the course of our hearings, which in any event are not designed to build a case for any specific proposal or course of action. What we intend to do is to develop a body of information related to three basic questions: How can the institutional role and activities of Congress be more fully and accurately covered in the news media? How can spokesmen for Congress gain direct access more readily to the broadcast media to present congressional points of view? And, finally, what additional facilities, staff, and other supporting services, if any, are required to provide Congress with more adequate institutional capability in the area of mass communications? We will seek answers to these questions from Members of the House and Senate who have long been interested in the communications problems of Congress and from witnesses experienced in corporate media management, daily journalism practices, public opinion analysis, media criticism, broadcast coverage of State legislatures and the United Nations, and academic experts in the field of congressional operations and constitutional law. Congressman Brooks, we are delighted you were able to come over and participate in the opening of these hearings. Please proceed in any way you wish in your opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. JACK BROOKS, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Representative BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a distinct privilege and honor to associate with you, with Congressman Cleveland and others on this fascinating and interesting Joint Committee. The latest Harris survey indicates that public opinion of the Congress has fallen to the lowest level he has ever recorded-69 percent of the electorate think that Congress does a poor job of protecting and looking after their interests. On seven specific issues, from Watergate to the energy crisis to controlling inflation, 71 to 88 percent of the people are very unhappy with congressional performance. Certainly, Congress has its faults. But most Members of Congress are honest and hardworking, intelligent and completely dedicated to representing their States or districts. And, this institution, by and large, does move with reasonable speed-and a concern for the factsand a serious desire to accommodate all or most all conflicting interests on any issue. Congress is a much more effective and responsive body than most people seem to believe. The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations began to examine the communications needs of Congress in December 1972, with a study designed to (1) Describe the existing imbalance between executive and legislative branch communications capabilities; (2) To identify and analyze some of the consequences of that imbalance; and (3) To suggest some ways that Congress might communicate more effectively the nature of its institutional role and day-to-day activities. Let me briefly give you some of the findings of our study: Because the prime sources for information about government and politics are television news, radio, newspapers, and news magazines, congressional access to and use of the news media is critical. The existing imbalance in communications capability between the executive and legislative branches poses a distinct threat to the balance of powers that lies at the heart of our constitutional system of Government. The study also identifies a number of concepts and ideas that concerned Members of Congress, and those experienced and interested in mass communications and the Congress, have proposed as ways of dealing with the problem. Although we need to utilize the media to convey a better understanding and image of the Congress, we must carefully consider whether the means that are suggested actually would achieve the desired results. The most common suggestion for this purpose is that there be audio and visual coverage of the Chamber proceedings. I question whether this would increase or decrease the public's understanding. I suggest rather that such coverage for the most part would be confusing and of no interest at all. Gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings would be similar to continuous coverage of hospital operating rooms for the purpose of improving the image and understanding of the medical profession. Congress is constantly being urged to correct the imbalance between its coverage and that of the President. In this vein, we must seriously question whether there is, in fact, such an imbalance. Let us bear in mind that the President represents a very evident focal point for media attention, while the Congress is composed of 539 independent individuals. Although there is the leadership in both Houses, it is obvious that no one person can speak for all of the Members and rarely for the majority. If we consider the Congress as one entity with many voices, a casual review of a daily paper will reveal that the alleged imbalance is at best debatable. On any given day there are several items on the President and several on various Members of the Congress. Clearly no one Member, with 500,000 constituents or if a Senator, an average of 2 million, can expect equal coverage with an individual who has 200 million constituents. To look at the problem on the basis of the attention given the executive branch vis-a-vis the Congress, again let us recognize that this is comparing one bureaucracy with several million individuals generating news, compared to a bureauracy of less than 20,000. Let us look at the positive side of this balance problem. The Congress has direct contact with its constituency. Virtually every Member spends a considerable portion of his time in direct contact with the American people. Almost every American receives at least one letter from a Congressman in any year. With the American public divided |